1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 201, the Defendant: (a) determined the repair cost of KRW 45,00,000 as the repair cost to the Plaintiff working as a director of the consulting company related to imported automobiles; and (b) was entrusted with repair of CWz automobiles owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant automobiles”).

B. On February 6, 2012, the Defendant remitted 7,000,000 won to the account designated by the Plaintiff, and 20,000,000 won on March 7, 2012. The Plaintiff refused to deliver the instant automobile upon the Plaintiff’s request for payment of the remainder of KRW 7,00,000 (=45,000,000-18,000-18,000,000,000), including service charges of KRW 13,00,000,000, and storage fees of KRW 9,000,000 (=13,00,0000 + 13,00,000,0000 + 9,0000,0000).

C. The Defendant filed an application against the Plaintiff for a provisional disposition for the delivery of the instant motor vehicle with the court 2012Kahap942, and the Defendant rendered a decision that “the Plaintiff received KRW 7,00,000 from the Defendant and then delivered the instant motor vehicle to the Defendant,” and subsequently became final and conclusive after which the decision was rendered. After that, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 7,00,000 according to the above provisional disposition decision and received the instant motor vehicle delivery around September 18, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, Gap evidence 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Upon the Defendant’s request, the Plaintiff has been towing twice the instant motor vehicle on September 23, 201 and September 27, 201 in the course of requesting the maintenance of the instant motor vehicle, and each towing charge is KRW 150,000, and the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff KRW 300,000 in total.

In light of the above, it is not sufficient to recognize the fact that the plaintiff paid towing expenses as alleged by the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit without examining it.

B. On September 10, 201, the Plaintiff concluded a service contract for the management and maintenance of the instant motor vehicle with the Defendant.